Loading...
BM 2004-07-01 BOAMINUTES OF JULY 1, 2004 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment of the City of Coppell met on Thursday, July 1, 2004, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall, 255 Parkway Blvd. In attendance: Mark LeGros, Chairman David Stonecipher, Vice Chairman Rob Chomiak, Commissioner David Terry, Commissioner Steve Wright, Commissioner John Hoppie, Alternate Commissioner Donald Perschbacher, Alternate Commissioner Laura Ketchum, Alternate Commissioner Absent: Ronald Smith, Alternate Commissioner Also present: Greg Jones, Chief Building Official Mary Beth Spletzer, Secretary Applicants present: Mr. Bruce Martin, Wynnpage Plaza, 255 S. Denton Tap Road, Coppell Ms. Joanne Smith, 420 S. Coppell Road, Coppell Item 1: Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman LeGros. Chairman LeGros explained the procedures of the meeting and administered the oath for those wishing to speak for or against the request being heard this evening. Item 2: Approval of minutes of June 3, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 3, 2004, meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Chomiak, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 5 to 0. Minutes approved. Item 3: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request from Section 12-29-4(3) of the City of Coppell's Zoning Ordinance, for the property located at 255 S. Denton Tap Road. Mr. Bruce Martin, on behalf of Kumon Learning Center, located in Suite 200 of Wynnpage Plaza, is requesting a variance to allow for the erection of an attached sign, facing Denton Tap Road, on a wall that is not a part of Kumons' frontage. Greg Jones referred to the drawings, included in the packet, indicating that this building consists of three separate lease spaces, but, only two (ATS Services and PharmaSkinCare) actually have street frontage along Denton Tap. The remaining tenant, Kumon Learning Center, is located in Suite 200, within the building, but has no Denton Tap street frontage. He also reported that PharmaSkinCare has not yet applied for their "attached" sign permit, but ATS Services is already occupying the building and has erected a small attached sign, which actually falls below their size allotment. He further explained that this building has only rear-facing entrances, and was originally approved for "office" use zoning, adding that it's actually being leased for "retail" use, in which signage becomes an important issue for the tenants. Greg Jones further explained that, based on the 1:1 ratio, outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, Kumon would be entitled to a sign approximately 60 sq. ft. in size, but, because they're requesting that the sign be located on the front of the building, and they have no building frontage, a variance is needed for sign location purposes. He further noted that Kumon Learning Center has complied with all other zoning requirements, and, if they were to have a sign on the front of the building, it would be located at the south end of the building front. He emphasized, however, that in doing so, it would deny PharmaSkinCare of their full signage allotment based on building frontage calculations. Greg Jones commented, also, that from past experience, similar situations, in which signs are located a distance away from the actual suite locations, have resulted in confusion for the public, and are usually not a good solution. He indicated that, in most cases, this type of problem would be resolved through the landlord/tenant lease agreement, rather than through the City in the form of a variance request. Greg Jones further commented that it could not be determined, from the notification mailing list, whether PharmaSkinCare had received notification of this meeting. He added, however, that the landlord, most likely, would have communicated this information to all concerned tenants. Chairman LeGros asked if a monument sign, listing the tenant names, would be an option in this case. Greg Jones explained that a monument sign, listing anything other than Wynnpage Plaza, was not part of the City's original approval process. Therefore, such a change would require reconsideration by Planning and Zoning, and possibly by City Council. Commissioner Stonecipher asked if all entrances are located at the rear of the building, and Greg Jones responded that they are, including one main entrance and various other service entrances. Commissioner Stonecipher further asked if all three tenants had submitted sign permit applications. Greg Jones replied that ATS Services was previously approved for their existing attached sign, and, PharmaSkinCare was approved for their existing temporary banner permit, but had not yet applied for an attached sign permit. Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the size allowed for each of the tenants' signs. Greg Jones explained that PharmaSkinCare would be allowed approximately 80 sq. ft., Kumon would be allowed a 60 sq. ft. sign, and ATS Services would utilize the remaining space, even though their current sign is already erected and is actually smaller in size than their allotted space. Commissioner Chomiak commented that he wondered at what point this issue becomes a landlord/tenant issue, and not a City issue. He further asked if the City would actually approve three attached signs, should a variance be granted. Greg Jones reiterated that due to the fact that Kumon does not have frontage along Denton Tap, a sign cannot be placed on the front of the building, according to the Sign Ordinance, because it would, in effect, deny PharmaSkinCare their full sign allotment. Commissioner Wright asked for clarification on the location of the specific language, in the Ordinance, that states that a sign can only be located on the building face. Greg Jones indicated that the Ordinance defines it as frontage shared with other leaseholders, adding that he had not spoken with the other tenants, but perhaps the applicant had done so. Commissioner Stonecipher asked if the City could suggest any other signage options for Kumon Learning Center. Greg Jones responded that the City really has no control over this situation since the development was originally approved for "office" use, rather than retail. Discussion continued on the method of calculation for maximum aggregate effective area. The applicant was invited to step forward to present his case. Mr. Bruce Martin, property owner of 255 S. Denton Tap Road, explained that his goal is to give each tenant at least some sign visibility. He noted that this building was oriented and designed to give a clean look, from the Denton Tap side, adding that complying with all of the requirements for location of utilities, entrances, parking requirements, fire lanes, and line of sight, presented a challenge. Chairman LeGros asked the applicant for clarification of his actual property hardship. Mr. Martin responded that, throughout the development process, he understood that signage calculations would be based on the width of the entrance to their site, rather than on building frontage. He added that he was surprised to learn, later in the process, of the City's interpretation of Sections 12-29-4(B)(i) and 12-29- 4(B)(ii), in which building frontage is used as the basis of determining signage. Mr. Martin reported, however, that he spoke with PharmaSkinCare about this variance request, and they indicated their willingness to work something out with Kumon Learning Center, regarding signs. Greg Jones responded that this interpretation, based on building frontage, is consistent with past decisions, including: Everybody Fits, located off Denton Tap; and, Coppell Crossing, located off MacArthur. He reiterated that this issue could have been addressed through a landlord-tenant lease agreement. Commissioner Stonecipher commented that regulations for a rear-entrance building are not clearly defined in the Ordinance. Mr. Martin commented that at the rear of the building, the main entrance is clearly obvious, and, to further minimize confusion, they plan to install knee-high, on-premise signs. Commissioner Stonecipher questioned whether three logical locations even exist on the front of this building for attached signs. Commissioner LeGros asked if the PharmaSkinCare attached sign would go in the same location as their current banner, and it was noted that a permit had not yet been submitted for the PharmaCareSkin sign. The question was raised, also, if the variance would be tied to the property or to the tenant. Chairman LeGros commented that he felt the variance should be tied to the property, in order to resolve this issue for future tenants, as well as current ones. Commissioner Chomiak asked for clarification on the actual issue that is being violated in this situation, commenting that if signage doesn't exceed the square footage limit, does a sign problem really exist. Mr. Martin suggested that it might simplify the City's role in the sign approval process if Kumon and PharmaSkinCare applied for their sign permits at the same time. Greg Jones indicated, however, that the real issue is that unless a variance is granted by this board, Kumon Learning Center is, by Ordinance, not entitled to an attached sign facing Denton Tap, since building frontage is a factor. The meeting was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the variance request. Meeting was closed to the public, and opened to the board for discussion. Commissioner Wright commented that he felt the City's interpretation of using the building face to determine signage is reasonable. He added that he felt this interpretation could be used as an avenue for hardship, but, commented that he felt the variance should not be tied to the tenants only. Chairman LeGros commented that he felt this situation should have been handled through the lease agreement, adding that because the use changed, the only real solution to this problem is a monument sign. Commissioner Terry suggested that the three tenants be allowed to divide the 130 sq. ft., as long as it doesn't exceed the maximum for the building, adding that he agrees with Mr. Martin's suggestion of asking the two remaining tenants to submit sign permits at the same time. Commissioner Chomiak commented that he did not understand why the City was even involved in this issue, especially since PharmaSkinCare was not present for this meeting to express their concerns. Commissioner Stonecipher indicated that he would be more comfortable if he could see more examples of similar cases in the City, adding that he is still struggling with the issue that none of these three tenant spaces actually "front" on Denton Tap Road. Motion was made by Commissioner Wright that a variance be granted allowing Kumon Learning Center to erect an attached sign not to exceed 20 sq. ft. in size. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Terry, and a vote was taken. Motion carried, 4 to 1, with Chairman LeGros voting in opposition. Variance granted. Item 4: Public Hearing to consider approval of a variance request for the property located at 420 S. Coppell Road. Ms. Joanne Smith is requesting the following two-part variance concerning fence location and color: 1) from Sections 12-11-3. l(a) and 12-32-2.1 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a 20-ft. variance to the front setback line along Kaye Street; and 2) from Article 9-2-7(B) of the City of Coppell's Code of Ordinances, to allow the fence to be painted white, whereas the Code of Ordinances limits wood fence colors to earth-tone colors only. Greg Jones noted that this variance request originally consisted of two separate requests, but the applicant has since withdrawn the request regarding fence color. He reported, however, that Ms. Smith is requesting a 20-ft. variance to the front setback line along Kaye Street. Referring to the packet, Greg Jones explained the proposed location of the fence, indicating that it would be a combination of picket and privacy fence. He noted that this lot is located in the old Coppell district and the house was constructed in the 1950s, when no zoning requirements existed. As a result, the property has never been platted, and the meets and bounds survey provided by the Tax Dept. was illegible. He explained that with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in the 1980s, the property was zoned SF-12, meaning that any changes in fencing, thereafter, would need to comply with the 30-ft. front yard setback, as it applies to corner lots, along Kaye Street and Coppell Road. Greg Jones further explained that this appeared to be a single lot, and was not grandfathered. Commissioner Wright asked for clarification on the distance between the curb and the house, and Greg Jones reported that he did not have those measurements. Commissioner Stonecipher asked if there were different requirements for a repair or replacement of a fence, and Greg Jones responded that this fence would be considered "non-conforming", if re-constructed in the same place. The applicant was invited to step forward to present her case. Ms. Joanne Smith explained that she is willing to accept a 10-ft. setback to insure corner visibility, but, applying the required 30-ft. setback would drastically reduce her useable sideyard along Kaye Street. She reported that she's been allowed to utilize this additional yard space all these years, having received the property through inheritance. She explained that she would like to be able to continue fully utilizing it the property, and, in particular, to construct a fenced-in dog run. Ms. Smith reported that she spoke with her adjacent neighbors and none were opposed to her fencing plan. Commissioner Chomiak asked if the picket-fence section would be see-through pickets, and Ms. Smith indicated that she had not yet made a decision about the pickets, but reported that the fence height for the "picket" section would be reduced to between 4 and 4-1/2 feet. Commissioner Stonecipher asked the applicant if there were any property hardships that prevented her from complying with the 30-ft. setback. Ms. Smith replied that 8 feet of her Kaye Street sideyard will be taken as easement when the street is widened in the future, adding that her trees may also be affected. The hearing was opened to the public. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the variance request. Meeting was closed to the public and opened to the board for discussion. Chairman LeGros commented that he felt the hardship was self-imposed, adding that denial of the request would not restrict reasonable use of the property. He added that all property owners with corner lots are held to the same restrictions. Commissioner Wright indicated that he felt the required setback is important in maintaining the visual corridor at Kaye Street and Coppell Road. Motion was made by Commissioner Terry that the variance request be granted. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stonecipher and a vote was taken. Motion was not approved, 5 to 0. Variance denied. Other Business. None. Adiournment. Meeting adjourned. Mark LeGros, Chairman Mary Beth Spletzer, Recording Secretary